Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4955 (2026)

Violation of orders.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 4955. Violation of orders.

(a) Punishment.--Any person violating any order made pursuant to section 4954 (relating to protective orders) may be punished in any of the following ways:

(1) For any substantive offense described in this subchapter, where such violation of an order is a violation of any provision of this subchapter.

(2) As a contempt of the court making such order. No finding of contempt shall be a bar to prosecution for a substantive offense under section 2709 (relating to harassment), 2709.1 (relating to stalking), 4952 (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims) or 4953 (relating to retaliation against witness or victim), but:

(i) any person so held in contempt shall be entitled to credit for any punishment imposed therein against any sentence imposed on conviction of said substantive offense; and

(ii) any conviction or acquittal for any substantive offense under this title shall be a bar to subsequent punishment for contempt arising out of the same act.

(3) By revocation of any form of pretrial release, or the forfeiture of bail and the issuance of a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest or remanding him to custody. Revocation may, after hearing and on substantial evidence, in the sound discretion of the court, be made whether the violation of order complained of has been committed by the defendant personally or was caused or encouraged to have been committed by the defendant.

(b) Arrest.--An arrest for a violation of an order issued under section 4954 may be without warrant upon probable cause whether or not the violation is committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer may verify, if necessary, the existence of a protective order by telephone or radio communication with the appropriate police department.

(c) Arraignment.--Subsequent to an arrest, the defendant shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the court that issued the order. When that court is unavailable, the defendant shall be arraigned before a magisterial district judge or, in cities of the first class, a Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

(June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)

2004 Amendment. Act 207 amended subsec. (c). See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to construction of law.

2002 Amendment. Act 218 amended subsec. (a)(2).

Cross References. Section 4955 is referred to in section 4956 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “” 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 4955(b). Stalking conduct also provides the basis for the issuance of a civil PFA order.”

Com. v. Perkins, L, 292 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “9 As discussed supra, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4955 and 4956 authorize the trial court to convict a defendant, who is released before trial, of indirect criminal contempt when the defendant intimidates a victim outside the presence of the court.”

PA Off. of AG v. Supervising Judge of the 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (Pa. 2015). · cites it 3× “Finally, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because persons who violate the Order are subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of a prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955, which permits, inter alia, prosecution for other, substantive offenses and…”

In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Off. of AG (Pa. 2015). · cites it 3× “• The Protective Order cautions that "any person," including OAG employees, who engages in conduct constituting obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation may be prosecuted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955 and any other applicable provision of the Crimes Code.”

Com. v. Masse, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “fn fn At trial, [Appellant was found not guilty of violation of the protective order (18 Pa.C.S. § 4955), therefore, further details on this issue are not necessary, despite extensive testimony on the issue at trial.”

In Re: The Thirty-Five Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Attorney Gen. Kathleen Kane (Pa. 2015). “Any person, including employees ofthe Office of the Attorney General, who engage in any act of obstruction, intimidation or retaliation against a witness summoned by the,Grand Jury in the Special Prosecutor's investigation may be prosecuted as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.§…”

Com. v. Alexander, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “The Court immediately imposed the mandatory sentence of life in prison for the murder charge (18 Pa.”

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4955(a)(1) — 2 cases

PA Off. of AG v. Supervising Judge of the 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (Pa. 2015). “Finally, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because persons who violate the Order are subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of a prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955, which permits, inter alia, prosecution for other, substantive offenses and…”

In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Off. of AG (Pa. 2015). “• The Protective Order cautions that "any person," including OAG employees, who engages in conduct constituting obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation may be prosecuted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955 and any other applicable provision of the Crimes Code.”

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4955(b) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “” 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 4955(b). Stalking conduct also provides the basis for the issuance of a civil PFA order.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.